It’s been another eventful week for brands across the world however no doubt the accolades for most news worthy story must belong to the Ford/WPP/Berlusconi saga. WPP’s sacking of the creative team responsible for the controversial Ford Figo advert this week led many to believe that Ford probably had little or nothing to do with the blunder.
However, despite publicly taking responsibility and punishing those who created the controversial work, it is not WPP’s brand reputation that has taken the biggest hit in the public eye. Undoubtedly as it was the car giants brand plastered all over the offending image Ford will continue to take the brunt of the negative publicity surrounding Berlusconi–gate. And maybe the criticism is justified when you consider fresh evidence that Ford Execs has signed off the creative to be entered into an awards competition before the excrement really hit the mechanical cooling device.
The hullabaloo and buzz generated from the controversy reminds The Brand Avenger of several other brands that have behaved badly in the past. For the purposes of simplicity and to ensure I have enough time to save the world from my arch nemesis ‘the reckless spend kid (with the inhuman ability to waste marketing investment on traditional, unmeasured forms of marketing- scary stuff I know)’ I will summarise three of my favourite examples…
In with the wrong crowd -Groupon
The deal model made popular by brands such as Groupon and Living Social has exploded on the scene over the last few years, no doubt helped with the increasing penetration of smartphones and app technology. Groupon’s brand image is crafted around offering customers daily savings on products, goods and services. But what happens when Groupon's brand reputation switches from connotations of 'the helping hand' to 'stabbing their customers in the back' via exaggerated offers and lack of transparency.
Groupon has quickly lost its way which is evident in declining market share and the resignation of its founding CEO. Unbelievably little is been done to manage and stabilise Groupon's brand to the extent where consumers are now voting with their wallets and looking to invest elsewhere. Groupon has to realise the consequences of its actions and work hard now to save the brand reputation through strategic marketing and company policy through revising its offer bank. It's time to reevaluate the circles of suppliers and manufacturers it chooses to hang out with and luckily for them there are plenty of marketing geeks out there in the shape out consumer behaviour consultancies who would love to embrace them into their inner circles if exchange for a look at that precious data.
The Yin and the Yang- Coca-Cola
You can't fault Coca-Cola for trying! In so many ways they are a market leader, innovative and a strong advocate for multi-channel media. They invest millions every year in marketing and are at the forefront of trying to understand social media and personalisation in greater detail. With so much momentum going for them they are undoubtedly in a real postion of power when it comes to brand reputation.
However as my old College roommate Spiderman once said after winning a position as dorm room monitor (such a geek) with great power comes great responsibility! And there is no doubting Coca-Cola should have been more responsible when it came to this year Superbowl advertising. No one is saying it wasn't a great idea to present an integrated media campaign across platforms to capture an audience and engage them on both the TV and secondary screens- But the lazy use of stereotyping and cliches when it came to the character selection no doubt marred what would have been deemed a unbelievably successful campaign. As you can see from the below article Oreo managed to get it spot on when it came to their use of instagram.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/04/coca-cola-super-bowl_n_2615632.html
Coca-Cola won't be too worried with the criticism as the brand damage is always carefully managed through their experienced marketing expertise. Therefore they earn the title of the Yin and the Yang as they somehow always seem to bounce back from the casual international incident.
Bad to the bone and loving it- Benetton
Benetton in the past has thrived on controversial content in its advertising campaigns clearly demonstrating the behaviour of a brand behaving badly but unlike Groupon bad in a cool way. Taking ten minutes to read an interview with the big cheese if the words of its Chairman are anything to go by will continue to portray themselves in a daring manner. Creative concepts such as the ‘kissing’ campaign where controversial images ranging from old men dressed as religious figures kissing to a black woman breastfeeding a white baby was unleashed on the public subsequently shocked and intrigued audiences across the world. The brand took a clear decision to misbehave through a campaign that would deliberately create controversy, much to the delight of Chairman Alessandro Benetton who went onto say “Of the 500m people who saw the 'kissing' campaign, more than 80%, if I remember correctly, had a positive view of what we'd done”. His interview goes a long way to demonstrate the power of behaving badly to build a brand image.
Some people believe strongly in the ethos that controversy creates cash. With that in mind you might not be surprised to find prior to this year’s Superbowl one study found controversy was actually a good thing for the buzz and value of several brands.
When talking about controversy and the benefits it can bring to brand image it has to be remembered that this is different to bad branding. Controversy is used by companies like Apple and Benetton to leverage a brand image when it is strategically essential to do so. Bad branding decisions such as lack of marketing investment and misalignment to a company mission statements is not cool and will ultimately lead to the road of ruin if something isn't done about it. It's a good job Berlusconi has got a lot of room in that boot, because he may need to fit one or two critically ill brands to the hospital if bad branding decisions aren't rectified.
